Royal Navy says huge size of its new aircraft carrier will be a deterrent

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/19/royal-navy-aircraft-carrier-deterrent

Version 0 of 1.

The captain of Britain's new aircraft carrier has defended the controversial multibillion-pound project by insisting the Royal Navy needs a large warship to defend the nation's interests and "nip aggressors in the bud".

Captain Simon Petitt said there was still a lot of symbolism in modern warfare and that having a ship the size of HMS Queen Elizabeth, which will be the navy's biggest ever, was significant.

Petitt said the sight of a heavily equipped 65,000-tonne carrier, which is almost 300 metres long, heading towards a potential enemy had a deterrent effect that is essential if the UK wants to project influence across the world.

"It is massively visible," he said. "You can range back in history and see the value of this. Everything from Nelson deterring Admiral Villeneuve from leaving Cadiz all the way to the big battleships of early 20th century, to what we are doing now.

"The Americans use it all the time. We currently haven't got this level of carrier capability. The bigger the capability the more influence you have to bear."

Petitt said the Royal Navy would not be able to carry out tasks demanded by ministers without the carrier. "To do the things you are required to do as a navy, you need one."

HMS Elizabeth will be launched next year and ready for service in 2020. It is being fitted and assembled at Rosyth shipyard in Fife as part of a construction programme that has provided jobs for 10,000 workers.

The scale of the project is unprecedented; by the time work on the carrier is completed, it will have 900 computer terminals hooked up to 2,000km of fibre-optic cable; the ship has nine decks, can generate enough electricity to power 5,500 homes and each of its two propellers weigh 33 tonnes.

To help feed the core crew of 680, there will be 200 toasters and microwave ovens. The ship has been assembled like a giant flat pack from 60 main sections that have been slotted and welded together at the dockyard.

However, the project has been beset by delays and overspends. The need for two new carriers – a second, the HMS Prince of Wales is also under construction – has been questioned, particularly during a period of budget and job cuts across the military.

The Ministry of Defence believes the ships will now cost £5.5bn – almost £2bn more than initial estimates. There are also deep concerns about the type and number of jets that will be flown from them.

In a humiliating about face, the government last year announced it was abandoning plans to buy the F-35C "carrier" version of the joint strike fighter – which needs catapults for take off.

Ministers reverted to the less capable F-35B, which takes off and lands like a Harrier jump jet. The U-turn cost £74m.

Despite all the difficulties, Petitt said ministers and military leaders needed the flexibility of a carrier. He said the navy had missed having one since its former flagship, the HMS Ark Royal, was decommissioned in the 2010 strategic defence and security review.

"I would say this wouldn't I, but clearly the Royal Navy has some unique features that allow us to get to the point of conflict fairly quickly and fairly safely as we sail through international waters.

"What we have with the carriers is added flexibility. [We have] a four-acre flight deck that is able to move at 500 miles a day, that allows you to fly a number of aircraft. We can go from flying the flag to flying combat missions in the blink of an eye."

Asked why the navy needed a carrier when it was currently managing without one, Petitt said: "Of course we have missed having a carrier, but we are in austere times and difficult decisions have to be made. It's not for the navy to argue, but there is a huge difference between taking a strategic pause and losing it in its entirety."

Petitt said HMS Elizabeth would be the most automated ship the navy has ever had and that he was currently attempting to write its operating manual.

"Our old ships were people heavy to make them safe and to make them capable of war fighting we needed large amounts of people. Now we have huge automation and we have to learn what that means."

One innovation involves the system for delivering missiles and bombs from the armoury to the aircraft. This has always been the responsibility of naval officers, but on HMS Elizabeth a machine will undertake the work.

"We have this automated weapon hunting system that picks the bomb off the shelf, takes it up to an area where human beings put fins on it, and then the system will take it up to the flight deck. That is a world of difference to how the Americans do things, and indeed most other nations, where there are people in the magazine. There is a lot to think about."

Petitt added: "If you speak to the Americans who operate ships with 3,000 people on board, they think we have a real challenge on our hands with a crew of 679. But I think it is doable. They are looking at what we are doing with huge interest. Everyone is looking at us to see whether automation will deliver."

If needs be, the size of the crew will be increased, he said.

"We might just well put a couple of more people in, certainly not up to the 3,500 the Americans operate their ships with, but we are talking about massaging a capability to make it work."

Petitt also raised the possibility that Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) or drones might be flown from the flight deck of HMS Elizabeth, even if it meant yet another U-turn to refit the ship with catapults.

"No navy ship has left service looking the way it started service. We don't know what the shape of UAVs will be in the future but certainly it is a fast growing technology. It's getting the requirement right so we can fly UAVs from her in 15 to 20 years time when some of these other aircraft go out of service. And if that requires the refitting of catapults then I am sure we will make that choice."

Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.